Clinton on Science, Energy and Stem Cells

I’ve been watching many of the candidates on the Democrat side of the election process for President and I’m finding myself surprised that Senator Clinton has my interest raised. I’ve known since her husband was President that she was a believer in science and understanding our bodies and our world is a never ending investigation, I did not know that she was so committed to unleashing our nations brainiacs and scientists to solve many of the ills that the current President silenced.

Stem cell research needs more than just the private sector to make considerable progress. Stem cell research needs the freedom of our universities and colleges to experiment without fear of losing federal grants or funding. Stem cell research is the science of our human future and without it many of the debilitating or life ending diseases will shorten the life span of many Americans.

Alternative energy science and research is expensive and asking Exxon Mobile to fund research that would basically put them out of business is an ultimate oxymoron. That would be the free market President Bush policy as far as alternative energy research goes. Senator Clinton is backing a full scientific research of alternative energy sources.

Over at the New York Times they have this bit on her speech today…

Clinton Says She Would Shield Science From Politics

Published: October 5, 2007

In a stinging critique of Bush administration science policy, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York said yesterday that if she were elected president she would require agency directors to show they were protecting science research from “political pressure” and that she would lift federal limits on stem cell research.

Mrs. Clinton, a leading Democratic presidential candidate, also committed herself to a space-based climate research project to combat global warming and pledged to spend $50 billion on fighting climate change and finding energy alternatives to foreign oil.

In a speech laying out her campaign’s science agenda, Mrs. Clinton spoke of the need for a “robust” program of human exploration of space. - New York Times

I’m a firm believer that if you place constraints on scientists and researchers then you are stifling the experimental process that needs to have a free thought process in order to make the discoveries needed by mankind. It’s a known fact that President Bush will only allow his belief in what science is to exist under his rules. That alone is a Comedy Central joke headline.

I’m one of the strongest believers that our nation needs new and yet to be discovered energy sources. More so now than any time in our nations history. Take wind power as just one example, GE is one of the greatest innovators in this technology that is absolutely a clean and green electric renewable energy source. It is not cheap to put up even one windmill but the alternative is burning fossil fuels that add to the global warming problem. I wonder if Senator Clinton would back a continuation of the tax breaks for wind power installation on the national grid? I’m wondering if she would offer the same tax breaks to wood pellet manufacturers that are building new plants to meet the demand for alternative renewable heating sources? If you own a wood pellet stove to heat your home then you know more than enough about the shortages over the past few years.

I won’t even start to run on with my incessant belief in the need for all forms of stem cell research to advance the science of medicine. From Diabetes to Parkinson’s is just touching the surface. How committed is she to the research process?

Day by day and issue by issue I’m finding my vote gravitating towards Senator Clinton but she could royally screw up tomorrow and come out with a huge tax and spend program that I do not believe in.


Cross posted at Papamoka Straight Talk

10 Responses to “Clinton on Science, Energy and Stem Cells”

  1. Jersey McJones Says:

    Tax and spend? How about tax and pay off our bills? The top marginal rate has GOT to rise, as does the FICA cap. If Clinton can’t do those things with the Dems on the HIll, then she will be a failure as far as I’m concerned.


  2. Lisa Says:

    We are on our way to a surplus and if Hillary gets in she will take credit for it just like her husband did when we know the reason was a Republican congress keeping the reigns on Bill.

  3. Jersey McJones Says:

    Lisa, you’re right! That’s right, I said it; YOU ARE RIGHT!

    The impetus for the red-to-black federal books in the 90’s was the political funnel created by a competent Dem in the White House, a then Reagan-era GOP group in the Congress, and a split court system. There were still plenty of problems - worsening manfacturing base, import deficits, wealth disparity, ‘exuberant’ speculative markets - but the boat of state of floated, and floated pretty well.

    The First Bush was actually among the designers of the 90’s federal economics. Clinton continued his policies with a little social libertarianism, and Bango! - things went pretty well. I’m a progressive, though, so as far as I’m concerned Clinton was an average president. If I were a partisan, I would hate the Clintons, which shows how sleazy the Right is for pairing the Clintons with the word “liberal.” The 90’s weren’t all that great.

    We do have to keep things in temporal perspective now. This is 2007, not 1997. The parties are very different now. Bush II is no Bush I. Clinton II may be a lot like Clinton I. We may well be on the verge of a hard recession. Given modern history, I would take Hillary over the GOP. If the Senate goes Blue, and the courts suddenly do too (which would be surprising), or at least purple, I have to go with Hillary.

    To people like us, there should be about 6 months left to decide. We should watch the congressional numbers.


  4. manapp99 Says:

    The problem with what Hillary says she would do if elected is that it likely will bear no resemblance to what she actually will do. She is part of the same political machine that Bill belonged to. She just wants votes and is trying to mold her beliefs to a message that will deliver as many as possible. While understandable it does not allow us to know what she really believes or will really do. She does not come to the election with a purpose she wishes to implement and therefore must sell to the public, she is trying to discern what message a 51% majority of likely voters wants to hear. As opposed to a Kucinnich or a Paul who have a ideas that probably will not get them elected but at least they are not prostitutes for votes. Not so different from other mainstream candidates perhaps but the post is about how wonderful it will be when she allows embrionic stem cell research and can cure everthing that ails us. Remember Bill promised to give us universal health care and even with Hillarys help could not deliver. Do not expect much to change if Hillary is elected either.

    As for the surge in revenue in the 90’s keep in mind the tech bubble which generated massive revenue in the form of taxation as well as downsizing of the military which saved money in spending.

  5. Matthew O'Keefe Says:

    Hold the presses on giving credit to any President when it comes to a good or bad economy. Our economy moves at a snails pace and always has. If FDR was not President for four terms followed by Harry Truman then the miracle economy with all the post war technology built into it would not have resulted in the explosive growth in the 1950’s. That was the pain and perils that Ike dealt with.

    I’m not a flag waving Hillary Clinton supporter but when it comes time to scientific research being unfettered then she has my interest. My vote is another topic for another day.

    Tell me I am wrong but are all of the Republican candidates running on a “I’m Bush and Reagan too!” platform?

    I have to disagree with you Jersey on the first Bush being the designer of the 90’s economic boom. He spent more time concentrating on affairs outside of America and lost the election because of it. He was on coasting mode during his one term.


  6. BYOC Says:

    This economy blame/claim topic always makes me laugh. A moderate Reagan takes office and the 80’s are a boom for 8 years as we ignore the have nots and the weakest saying “yeah its going to trick down,” a more conservative oil man Bush takes office the economy crashes in 2 years time the trickle never even dribbles. They leave us with a huge deficit.

    A moderate Democrat takes office with a former Apple computers board member as vice -computer science goes big -the nation gets a boom and every one makes money (He may not have invented the net but he was on the team that developed the consumer infrastructure we’re using) They bring us through several military actions so well But we only ever remember the failed one because holly wood made it into a movie-shame on us. And then they leave office with a surplus in the end -even though Newt and Ken Star decide to convince the evangelical nation to take a shit on them and accuse Bill of wagging the dog when he tries to kill Osama- Claiming its all a conspiracy to cover up his wagging the “DIngo” at Monica.

    A more conservative Bush rides the evangelical vote like Monica rode the bull - he did it on Carl Roves advice- Rove being no stranger to blowing smoke into an orifice gets bush appointed together they pay off the voters with hush money from the surplus, science get the shaft as a pray back to the evangelicals since biology is not congruent with theology, a whole industry is stopped in its tracks, they give tax incentives to corporations to go off shore while immigrants are encouraged to flood on shore and the economy tanks in under a year. And the deficit is projected to be huge well into the future. Don’t even get me started on the half trillion dollar war that going to get heaped on top. By the man who sold the world.

    The economy does not move at a snails pace it is driven by regulation/de-regulation, tax codes, wars, jobs, or lack there of juicing working stiffs for share holders and dumb asses willing to screw you in the wallet at the speed of light - if you give industry what it wants it makes slaves of a nation or jerks it self off until it dies … so much for hands off.

    I’ll tell you one thing though this nation needs to do what it has always done best, bring scientific innovation as manufactured goods to the world. Bio research, and alt fuel is the gold rush of the future. It does not matter who gets elected if we can bring the “gas-less” car to market we can bring back Detroit and sell it to the world creating tons of new jobs, rather than having to settle for a Prius, If we can bring green energy tech to the world they will pay us for fuel, and if we can bring bio therapies to market we can save lives and make a buck at the same time.

    If our next President backs science we will be a self sufficient nation exporting new tech products and setting the market price. If not we will be a nation dependent on imports and paying through the nose, on our knees praying for the good old days

  7. » Clinton on Science, Energy and Stem Cells Says:

    […] Mat wrote a fantastic post today on “Clinton on Science, Energy and Stem Cells”Here’s ONLY a quick extractTags: Health Care, BIO, President Bush, New York Times, Elections, ALS, Alternative Energy, Alzheimers, America, Anti Science, Bill Clinton, Bush, Candidates, Cheney, Cold Fusion, Creationism, Diabetes, Elections 08, Evolution, Fear, … […]

  8. Lisa Says:

    We need a balance in Washington. We can’t have one party passing evey legislation that comes to the floor for their own interests.

  9. Paul Watson Says:

    Amazing you haven’t been voicing this opinion for the last few years when Washington was unbalanced in your favour.

  10. BYOC Says:

    Balance? really? TRY REALITY! instead. In my experience the term balance as taught by Fox news and conservative mouth peices means ignoring reality and fixing the facts. Just because you don’t like something, it doesn’t make it false. You know what ?I ‘m campaigning for Joe Friday for president, ” Just the facts ma’am, simply the the facts .”

Leave a Reply